Progressive Caucus

Floor Speech

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be here representing the Progressive Caucus and talking about our fiscal situation now that I think a lot of people out there are worrying about, confused about, don't know how it's really going to affect them, wondering what the heck we're doing. Sometimes Members of Congress who aren't part of the negotiations are wondering what's going on too. But what I want to talk about today are the things that are at stake for ordinary people in our country, the things that are on people's minds as we deal with these economic issues that face our country.

I am Congresswoman Janice Schakowsky, and I represent a district, a very diverse district, in Illinois, diverse in every way--economically, certainly by race and ethnicity--and I think in many ways a microcosm of the country. I know that we're getting a lot of calls from our constituents. The calls that I'm getting were reaffirmed by a poll that I saw on Tuesday in our National Journal Daily on page six that says: "Poll: Entitlement cuts feared most in cliff talks.'' It goes like this:

As President Obama and congressional leaders race to avert the fiscal cliff, Americans remain concerned that whatever budget deal they strike will cut too much from Medicare and Social Security, according to the poll. More of the Americans surveyed are worried about such cutbacks than seeing their tax bills rise, the latest United Technologies/National Journal Connection poll has found.

I was looking at who was involved in the poll. In total, 35 percent of Americans are worried it will cut too much from government programs like Medicare and Social Security; 27 percent--that's eight points less--that it will raise taxes on people like you; 15 percent, it won't meet its target for reducing the Federal deficit and debt; 13 percent, it will allow for too much Federal spending. Only 13 percent were worried it will allow for too much Federal spending in the next 2 years.

But when I looked at, for example, women, 40 percent of women are most worried about those cuts in Social Security and Medicare and other government programs. Forty-six percent of people whose income is $30,000 or less, that's what they're really, really worried about; that's the thing they're worried about most.

So most Americans, that is their top concern--not really so much that their taxes are going to go up and not really so much about the deficit. They're worried about the cuts in the programs that mean so much to their lives.

So that's really what I wanted to talk about today. If any Members are listening in their offices and they want to come down and talk about the fiscal cliff, as it's called--many of us don't see it as a cliff, nor as a slope, that we actually have time to set the problem straight. That's what most economists are saying, that if we go a few weeks into January, it's not the worst thing so that Americans shouldn't panic about this. But if you want to come down and talk about that, I am really happy to do that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you very much. I appreciate both--you know, sometimes as legislators we like to think we're always right, and sometimes we make mistakes, inadvertent mistakes. And coming to the floor to actually clear the air I think is really commendable, and I appreciate that.

And also, your talk about the decisions that were made in Wisconsin--you know, government is to serve the people, the best interests of the American people. And right now, we're trying to figure out how are we going to, in a fair way, ask Americans to be able to fund the programs that we need, to fund the services that we need as a country, to make sure that our roads are there and drivable, to fund our military so that we can be safe and strong, to help States to fund their law enforcement, et cetera, all those things that are important to Americans, and as I mentioned earlier, including things like Medicare and make Medicaid.

Budgets aren't just a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper, and government policies aren't just documents. But, in many ways these are moral statements about who we are as a country. I think we have to ask, are we really a poorer country today than we were 70 years ago when Social Security went into effect, when Social Security went into effect to say that we're not going to let older people end up in the poorhouse or out on the street, that we're going to have an insurance policy that they pay into, that everyone pays into during your working life, so that we can ensure that when people reach the age of 62, 65, 67, that they're going to be able to retire with some level of dignity?

At the time that Social Security was passed 70 years ago, there was a three-legged stool. One was this new program, Social Security, to provide retirement benefits that you paid for; two, private pensions, that was kind of the common normal then. Many of those private pensions were won because workers were able to collectively bargain and get pensions for their family. The third were savings, savings for people.

So between all of that, we thought we'd be able to see a country now where the elderly were lifted out of poverty and they had some semblance of security.

Well, are we really poorer today than when we made that decision that we're not going to let old people end up in the poorhouse? That was a decision on how to fund a program that has never once missed a monthly check ever. In the 70 years plus, never ever has Social Security missed a monthly check. So it's been a program that works really, really well. And I just want to point out that Social Security helps middle class families, not just older people. I have two grandchildren who get a Social Security benefit. Why? Because, tragically, their mother died. So it is an insurance policy for all families.

The other great thing about Social Security is that unlike many pension programs, there's actually a cost-of-living adjustment. You don't get it every year, as seniors know. There really hasn't been an increase in the economy so much in certain years, but it has been a success, a treasure to our country.

Some people want to put Social Security on the table as part of this discussion to reduce the deficit that we face.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let's talk about that for a minute.

It seems that there are those on the Republican side of the aisle who are willing to go to the mat to protect tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans, people who make $250,000 and more. Of course, our proposal is to say that the first $250,000 of income for everyone, even if you make $500,000 a year, on the first $250,000--I think we all agree that we should extend those tax cuts. It's for the dollars above $250,000 that some of our colleagues are saying, no, we are not going to ask those people even to pay a penny more than they were. Yet they're saying the only way that we will consider that, the only way that we will consider taking a little bit more from the wealthiest, is to go to the poorest.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Into that Social Security.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I'm not talking about children. The poorest adults are people over 65 years of age and persons with disabilities. Their median income is $22,000 a year. The median income for older Americans is $22,000 a year. Really? Somehow this is a fair balance to ask the wealthiest Americans--the top 2 percent--to pay a little bit more, but darn it, we're not going to do it unless we get those poorest people through their Social Security, through their Medicaid, through their Medicare to pay a bit more? It doesn't seem right to me.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Representative Schakowsky, I think it's wrong that we would tell people who have paid into the Social Security system throughout their lives that now you're going to move the goalpost and put a couple of years more on there before eligibility, that you're going to up the age of eligibility.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Especially for Medicare. They're talking about that.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. They want to do that for Medicare as well. That Paul Ryan budget would actually decimate the Medicaid system. They just want to whack off a third of the Federal funding and then turn it into a block grant program.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I think it's something like $850 billion that would come out of the Medicaid fund. I know.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Then as to Medicare, they want to turn that into a voucher program and put a 1 percent cap, I think, on the cost-of-living increase and then give that in the form of a voucher to people so that they can go out and purchase insurance on the open market.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes, and go to private insurance companies.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes. It seems to be a concerted attack on that social safety net that has made us such a great civilization, which is that we take care of each other. It's an attack on that. It's in accordance with a philosophy of laissez-faire economics.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me just say one area in which I disagree a bit with you. Most Americans support these programs. I'm talking about huge percentages of Americans--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--who say, no, we don't think that Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid ought to be cut. We don't think so.

So I think, in terms of the role of government, most Americans see that it's important that when it comes to education, when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to public safety, when it comes to health care, government cannot do it all. Americans aren't saying, just take care of me. From cradle to grave, I want you to take care of me. No. Americans are willing to work hard and play by the rules, but they see an important role for government. If we cut government too much, in some ways, we kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Here is what I mean:

It is true that the Internet really did come from research that was done by government. Look at the billions and billions--I don't know--maybe trillions of dollars, and then look at the advance of the Internet and everything that led from that--bio research, talking about curing diseases. Then, of course, the money that comes from that for the pharmaceutical industry, et cetera, mostly comes from the National Institutes of Health, the Cancer Institute, et cetera, in coming up with the cures and the medications. That's government research. I mean, look at NASA and the space research. It was really the Federal Government, in many ways, that developed the aviation industry. So we'd better be careful about cutting government too much.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We definitely do. I think we've spent about 1 1/2 percent per year of the Federal budget on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from 1958 up until a few years ago.

Can you imagine if the United States Government had left it up to private industry to achieve what happened in 1969, which was that we landed a spaceship, with men inside, and stepped foot on the Moon? Now, some who are not particularly scientifically astute will say, Well, what do we get out of going to the Moon?

I, not being the most astute scientist myself, wouldn't be able to explain all of the benefits that society has enjoyed as a result of that victory and as a result of the space program that has continued, but I will tell you that, at this point after 50 years of investment, we've now entrusted the private sector to continue the exploration of outer space, and private industry is going to take us further than we have been.

So that is the role of government. It's a support structure. It's an investment in the lives of the people.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Think about the potential in the energy industry if we just help to promote some of these clean, renewable energy technologies.

One of the things on this cliff is the end of the wind energy production tax, which has been so incredibly successful in helping build this wind industry that is ready to take off but still needs a bit more support. This means clean energy to my State, Illinois, and the Middle West, where we've got lots of wind--it's free. And investing in wind energy--if that expires, we're going to lose 7,000 jobs in Illinois alone because of the failure to help invest in the wind energy industry.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It's not profitable at this time for private industry to invest in such a new way of producing energy. There's no profit in it, so they won't do it. Government has the leadership and the vision to understand where we need to go, how we need to take our people into the future. We--the public policy apparatus, the government, we the people, the government being of us--have a responsibility not just to enhance short-term profits; we have a responsibility as a government to plan and prepare for the future of this great Nation.

We also have an inherent responsibility to lead the world. We're all in this world together. We all are going to breathe the same air. We're all going to drink from the same pool of water that exists on this planet. So we being the greatest Nation in the world are really shirking our responsibility by reducing government down to the size where you can drown it in a bathtub. I think that's the analogy that Grover Norquist used. If you did that, where would America be? How would we have built the Interstate Highway System?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That was Eisenhower; wasn't it?

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes. A Republican, by the way, 1958, I believe it was, decided that this country needed an interstate highway system. Where would we be if we had not committed the dollars to get that done?

When we did that, it was an investment in the future prosperity of this Nation to link cities, towns, and States with a way, a mode of transportation. They did that in the 1800s with the railroad system, another situation where the Federal Government supplied the seed money and gave away the land to help it become a profitable industry.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Along rail lines, along highways, of course, that's the engine of commerce that keeps not only our wheels turning, but the stores--everything going, all of the infrastructure.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. That's what it's all about. Government is the entity which primes the economic pump through which prosperity then flows.

So we're now at a point, though, where: Are we going to turn everything over to the big businesses, and are we going to reduce the ability of people to be able to come together in a workplace and bargain collectively? Are we going to take steps to eliminate people from voting so that those who are the chosen ones can elect the people of their choice, and all of the rest of the people are just supposed to expect to be treated benevolently by those who are seeking to exploit the capital, the human capital, and make as much money as they can? At whose expense is that?

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You were talking about how government helps to prime the pump. So government spends money, and it spins out and often becomes commercialized. There are three ways that we can really deal with our economy right now to make it stronger: We can raise revenue, that's raising taxes; we can cut spending; and the third--that's not talked about enough--is the issue of growth in the economy, jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what grows the economy.

I am so proud that our President, as part of this overall deficit reduction plan, has recommended spending about $50 billion on jobs. They would spend money on infrastructure, infrastructure spending that's supported by both business and labor because it is so important. And it's kind of a no-brainer. If you spend money that will create jobs, you now have people, one, who are not having to get unemployment insurance or food stamps. They are working and can support their families, so we get them off public support. And, two, now they're paying taxes. They're going out and they're buying stuff, and businesses are going to have to hire more people because they're buying holiday presents for their kids. They're buying winter coats now. So there is an economy through growth. That is an underrated portion when we talk about how do we save our economy.

I have been circulating a letter among our colleagues, Representative Johnson, saying we ought to encourage investment, that we ought to encourage spending on jobs in this deficit reduction, this economic growth package.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We have to stimulate, as government does, economic vitality. We can do that. It has been done repeatedly throughout the history of this country. A great example is the recent $787 billion stimulus that was passed back in, I think, 2007.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Some people say it didn't create any jobs. Well, I think the testimony is that many of our colleagues, almost all of our colleagues, showed up at the ribbon cuttings.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes, with the big checks. And they were actually clamoring for that Federal money, and it made an important difference. It allowed States and local governments to retain teachers and firefighters, police officers, construction workers. You know, the whole nine. That's, in part, the reason why we have such an uptick in our economy, however modest it might be right now. That $787 billion stimulus has made a difference, and I'm glad.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. It actually created millions of jobs.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Yes, it sure did.

And so I readily signed on your letter that you're circulating, your ``Dear Colleague'' letter. And I'm glad to know, as well, that the President has included a modest $50 billion stimulus aspect in his proposal to strike a grand bargain and avoid the fiscal cliff. So all of these things are a part of what is hopefully being negotiated now.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You were talking about a difference in philosophy and even economic philosophy. There are those who call that top 2 percent the job creators. Well, if that's true, then where are the jobs? Because most of the growth, almost all of the growth in income over the last many years has gone to the wealthiest Americans where, for ordinary Americans, their income has remained flat.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Actually, since 1979, the income, or the after-tax income, of the top 2 percent has increased by about 372 percent, if I recall the correct number, 372 to 378, while, as you say, regular working people, the middle class, their incomes have remained flat. It's actually a redistribution of the wealth of the country.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. When we have a situation in this country where the top 1 percent of Americans, 1 percent, control as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, that's not a healthy situation. I don't want to moralize about it. It's just not a healthy situation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. No, it's not healthy. And it's amoral. Greed, when you've got to get more, more, more and you're not willing to share, you're not willing for everyone to prosper; and when you think that a person is poor because they don't want to get out and work, they have bad habits, they didn't do this, they didn't do that and, therefore, they deserve to be where they are now. But me, I did it the old-fashioned way, I inherited my money. And so don't blame me. I'm going to make more money and I don't care about you, I'm going to make money off of you, that is rather immoral, rather shortsighted.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I have to tell you, I introduced legislation that actually would increase the taxes on people starting at a million going up, ratcheting up, different tax brackets up to a billion dollars. And I've got a lot of very rich people who say, yeah, that's fair. That's right.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It's only a few, like Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, who want to control the public policy apparatus. They want to control government so that they can have government to make them more money. That's all they're interested in is themselves, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But let me just say this: the other philosophy, though, is that if you have a robust middle class of consumers who will actually have enough money in their pockets, middle class people, hopefully even including those who aspire to the middle class have more money in their pockets, that that is what's going to drive the economy. They're going to go out, and they're going to spend the money, and that's going to spread throughout the economy.

Whereas, the wealthiest Americans may buy another yacht, but probably are just going to accumulate that kind of money and really don't do nearly what the middle class does to make a robust economy for everyone. When we all do better, we all do better.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. We all do better when the money is circulating. Those on the top end, they're going to continue to make money; but those who are just working people, regular working people, and those who aspire to the middle class, when that money is circulating, then we can all, collectively, become more wealthy, and we will all spend more dollars, and that means more goods and services have to be produced, and that means you have to have people employed to service the needs of those with the money.

So it's just really common sense. Instead of trying to break the unions, we should be trying to solidify the relationships that the unions have established with their employers.

Detroit is a fine example of how the greatest, richest union, the Auto Workers Union, came to the table with the corporate bosses, after the corporate bosses had run the business into the ground, and needed a bailout from government, and President Obama made a determination that we're going to invest money in GM and in Chrysler, and we're going to not let those companies go bankrupt.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That was a lot of jobs that would have gone down.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And so we spent $700 billion. And it was the United Auto Workers union that sat down at the negotiating table with Big Business, worked out what some may call give-backs. It actually gave up some of the benefits that it had signed contracts for with the employer.

These are things that actually created the middle class, things like working days, working hours, wages, benefits, retirement, those kinds of things that people would not have had unless they had been represented by a union and we had strong unions.

So those things workers gave back in part to make sure that the corporations could maintain or regain stability. And so now, just a short, 3, 4, 5 years later, GM is back to being the number one car maker in the world.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And all the money's been paid back to the United States Treasury.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I think they still owe us a little bit. We still have some GM stock. The Federal Government still owns some GM stock, which they're going to have to repurchase those shares from us. So we are still involved, but that's another example of the role of government.

And I, myself, I'll never be one to hate government. And I try to explain to people why government is not the problem. Government is a part of the solution.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Part of the solution.

Can I just ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time we have remaining.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). The gentlewoman from Illinois has 5 minutes remaining.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I want to say a few things about organized labor.

I'm old enough, Congressman Johnson, when I was growing up, one person could work in the steel mills on the south side of Chicago, tough job, but you could not only make a decent wage that put you in the middle class; you could buy a car, you could have a little house, modest house, and you could even afford to send your kids to college. You had health care benefits. You had a pension, a private pension. And that was the normal. That was the normal in the United States. You worked hard, often really hard, but you could, you know, make a wage that would afford you a good, middle class life.

I think there's a lot of people who think that, well, unions, that is so 20th century. You know, that was yesterday. We don't need them anymore today. But I want to say that if we have a low-wage economy--you know, some of the companies that are coming back to the United States, you know what they're saying, that the differential in wages between the United States and Bangladesh is insignificant enough that they might as well come back and make their products in the United States.

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. You've got an educated work force, relatively speaking. You've got enhanced transportation abilities here to get your goods and services to market quickly, as opposed to the expense and the security of coming across the water. And I'm happy that businesses are looking to re-establish their production facilities inside of America. That's good corporate consciousness.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me end with this since we just have a couple of minutes. As we face all these negotiations that are going on, I think there's a couple of bottom lines. One--and the President has been very clear--we are going to have to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a bit more.

And, number two, I think we ought to say that those programs that help people have a decent retirement--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, as well--that that is the wrong place to go in order to balance our budget. We don't have to go to the poorest people. We can make those programs more efficient. We can cut the costs of those programs, but we don't have to reduce the benefits and further impoverish people who aren't making a lot of money right now.

For me, those are sort of bottom lines for the deal that we want to make. All of us are in this together. We should all see each other as our brother's and sister's keepers. With that kind of philosophy in mind, I think we can come up with some sort of an agreement that serves our country, that serves its people, that is just and fair and helps us go forward.

Do you have a final word?

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. No, that's enough said. Let me say how much I enjoyed our colloquy today, and I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that America remains the great Nation that it has always been.

Source